1-A to High 1-A question

[Theglassman12]

Say a verse operates under R>F standards which qualifies for 1-A here. Said verse is stated to have dualities in like everything, saying how everything has a shadow to its light akin to there being two sides of the same coin. If a realm is stated to lack some concepts entirely and is capable of transcending everything in the verse, would that be any grounds for High 1-A due to transcending the duality of Reality and Fiction?

 

[SweetDao]

Say a verse operates under R>F standards which qualifies for 1-A here. Said verse is stated to have dualities in like everything, saying how everything has a shadow to its light akin to there being two sides of the same coin. If a realm is stated to lack some concepts entirely and is capable of transcending everything in the verse, would that be any grounds for High 1-A due to transcending the duality of Reality and Fiction?

Is "reality-fiction" dichotomy mentioned directly, or is it inferred by you?

In my opinion, if it's somewhat backed up, with no antifeat, and if it means the realm is beyond the duality of R/F, it would be High 1-A yeah. Although, if it's a bit ambiguous, you can always just put a possibly. The logic checks out at least.

 

[Theglassman12]

More inferred via just a statement of a knowledgeable character claiming everything in a verse has some duality to them, elaborating that there's a shadow to its light, and said verse just happened to have R>F stuff that qualifies in the series. I'm curious if that is grounds for either a solid High 1-A buff or if that could be like "1-A, possibly High 1-A" instead.

 

[SweetDao]

More inferred via just a statement of a knowledgeable character claiming everything in a verse has some duality to them, elaborating that there's a shadow to its light, and said verse just happened to have R>F stuff that qualifies in the series. I'm curious if that is grounds for either a solid High 1-A buff or if that could be like "1-A, possibly High 1-A" instead.

Is the "realm" above everything/transcending everything due to being "beyond every dualities"? Or just a vague "it's being everything in the verse"?

 

[Theglassman12]

The latter of it being above everything in the verse. If it helps, there's neighboring realms that don't reach the scope of this realm that are stated to lack some concepts like time or light or darkness or anything.

 

[SweetDao]

The latter of it being above everything in the verse. If it helps, there's neighboring realms that don't reach the scope of this realm that are stated to lack some concepts like time or light or darkness or anything.

Hmmm, I'm not sure about a straight High 1-A, but with a bit of arguments, I think it's possible to at least get a possibly High 1-A. As long as the realm isn't "above due to the same reason as R>F", it's likely at least.

 

[Theglassman12]

Oh yeah, in said verse, light and darkness are confirmed to exist as a duality in the series and some realms that don't reach the "big realm" just lack light and darkness itself at a conceptual level. Would that help strengthen the argument for High 1-A in that instance?

 

[SweetDao]

Oh yeah, in said verse, light and darkness are confirmed to exist as a duality in the series and some realms that don't reach the "big realm" just lack light and darkness itself at a conceptual level. Would that help strengthen the argument for High 1-A in that instance?

I think it can work, yeah. I'm not sure with a 100% rating (since I would need to see the whole arguments on a CRT) but at the very least, it's looking that way.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Say a verse operates under R>F standards which qualifies for 1-A here. Said verse is stated to have dualities in like everything, saying how everything has a shadow to its light akin to there being two sides of the same coin.

More inferred via just a statement of a knowledgeable character claiming everything in a verse has some duality to them, elaborating that there's a shadow to its light, and said verse just happened to have R>F stuff that qualifies in the series. I'm curious if that is grounds for either a solid High 1-A buff or if that could be like "1-A, possibly High 1-A" instead.

How does the duality of R>F work here? Is it that the 1A realm and non-1A realm are two sides of the same coin, or is it something else?

 

[SweetDao]

How does the duality of R>F work here? Is it that the 1A realm and non-1A realm are two sides of the same coin, or is it something else?

I think it's moreso referring to the "generally duality of reality and fiction", the stuff about the realms was more about bringing more explanations/arguments.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

I think it's moreso referring to the "generally duality of reality and fiction", the stuff about the realms was more about bringing more explanations/arguments.

I see. I'm just thinking that dualities like "two sides of the same coin" don't fit a 1A-type duality of reality and fiction, since they're not disconnected. It's more of an anti-feat, since a 1A duality between reality and fiction is a logical negation.

That's why we use the 1A and non-1A duality , as 1A (reality) encompasses everything that is real, and non-1A includes everything that is not real. They're disconnected, as 1A should be, and logical negations.

 

[SweetDao]

I see. I'm just thinking that dualities like "two sides of the same coin" don't fit a 1A-type duality of reality and fiction, since they're not disconnected. It's more of an anti-feat, since a 1A duality between reality and fiction is a logical negation.

That's why we use the 1A and non-1A duality , as 1A (reality) encompasses everything that is real, and non-1A includes everything that is not real. They're disconnected, as 1A should be, and logical negations.

Realistically, if the verse deems "Reality and Fiction" as duality, then it is, that whole nonsense with "it has to be logical negations" is truly brainrot. (well, TD itself is brainrot tbf). In any case, transcending the dichotomy between R and F is straight up High 1-A.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Grabbing_dragon literally what’s the difference between “real and not real” and “real and fiction”? You do realize things that are fictional are by default not real right? This is just saying that Light has to be balanced out with Not Light when Darkness is the opposite of Light in any instance of a dual nature.

 

[Frey_Starlight]

in laymans term there shouldn't be any difference in wording there, but in a verse, not real or un-real part of duality can just mean things that are not real based of the logic that governs whats real and not inherently means fictional aspect. but i dont think this is relevant for a verse that blatently uses reality-fiction. i guess the arguement here is if everything inside the verse is governed by "duality" then its be logical to assume even reality fiction interaction are part of this duality.

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah I mostly wanted to know if said verse that has pretty blatant R>F stuff and also has a statement of everything having a duality would imply something that transcends everything would include the duality of Reality and Fiction here.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

@Grabbing_dragon literally what’s the difference between “real and not real” and “real and fiction”? You do realize things that are fictional are by default not real right?

The difference is that the former is a logical opposite/duality, while the latter is just a normal opposite without the context I gave, it doesn’t qualify as a duality in VSBW.

This is just saying that Light has to be balanced out with Not Light when Darkness is the opposite of Light in any instance of a dual nature.

Yeah, it has to be balanced with not-light in order to be a logical dual nature, not just a normal duality. Ultima already talked with you about something similar here

 

[Theglassman12]

So how is Fiction not a logical opposite in the context of Reality > Fiction when Reality is the polar opposite?

Ultima literally did not talk about anything light and darkness in that thread. Plus other folks I've talked to who knows nonduality stuff have said Light and Darkness still counts as a duality because darkness is by definition not light.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Ultima literally did not talk about anything light and darkness in that thread. Plus other folks I've talked to who knows nonduality stuff have said Light and Darkness still counts as a duality because darkness is by definition not light.

Darkness is not light as much as a duck isn't silicon (horrible example dont mind just read follow up). Logical negations are more so categories that everything must fall under without exception one or the other. A rock isn't darkness nor is it light for example. But it is not-light and not-darkness in contrast to like "darkness" and "light".

 

[Theglassman12]

That sounds more like trying to push for a specific definition of what even counts for a duality in this wiki more than just using the examples fiction and general Taoisms use a lot.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

That sounds more like trying to push for a specific definition of what even counts for a duality in this wiki more than just using the examples fiction and general Taoisms use a lot.

I mean Ultima essentially said same thing in that downgrade thread for Castlevania that most cosmic duality wont qualify. DT has same sentiments as well.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ultima saying it doesn't automatically make it not stupid when fiction uses Good and Evil or Light and Darkness or hell Life and Death as major examples of dual natures.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Ultima saying it doesn't automatically make it not stupid when fiction uses Good and Evil or Light and Darkness or hell Life and Death as major examples of dual natures.

It'd probably be better to make a staff thread to clarify duality stuff.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

So how is Fiction not a logical opposite in the context of Reality > Fiction when Reality is the polar opposite?

Oh, if it's in the context of 1A, then it's a logical negation. here

Ultima literally did not talk about anything light and darkness in that thread. Plus other folks I've talked to who knows nonduality stuff have said Light and Darkness still counts as a duality because darkness is by definition not light.

Ultima showed us that only logical negations count as dualities. And as you’ve seen on the duality page, fire and water aren’t dualities, but fire and not-fire are. So there’s no way darkness and light are logical negations if they dont include everything in their categories. Darkness includes all dark things, and light includes everything that’s not darkness, while being completely disconnected from each other.

It'd probably be better to make a staff thread to clarify duality stuff.

true

 

[Theglassman12]

Fire and Water aren't the same type of "dualities" as something like Light and Darkness, the latter being the most used example in fiction when talking about dual natures.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Ultima saying it doesn't automatically make it not stupid when fiction uses Good and Evil or Light and Darkness or hell Life and Death as major examples of dual natures.

he said it after saying this ,So he already had that in mind when saying that. 99% of fiction wouldn’t qualify, since they don’t use logical negations as dualities.

 

[Theglassman12]

That doesn’t change my point that it’s still stupid of an argument to make here when Nonduality uses the Yin Yang image as an example on the page, but we just ignore the most common examples of a dual nature for the ability.

 

[Rikimarox2]

That doesn’t change my point that it’s still stupid of an argument to make here when Nonduality uses the Yin Yang image as an example on the page, but we just ignore the most common examples of a dual nature for the ability.

It's so funny ngl. Like, imagine;

Page uses Yin-Yang image as an example for duality

Yin-Yang somehow doesn't qualify as a duality

Nuke the ability at this point. I don't get why we've gone with this type of duality instead of the one that 99% of fiction uses (ie, fire-water, yin-yang, etc...)

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

It's so funny ngl. Like, imagine;

Page uses Yin-Yang image as an example

Yin-Yang somehow doesn't qualify as a duality

Nuke the ability at this point. I don't get why we've gone with this type of duality instead of the one that 99% of fiction uses (ie, fire-water, yin-yang, etc...)

If anything some buddhist image would do better since that's what falls under logic stuff lmao

Catuṣkoṭi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Nuke the ability at this point. I don't get why we've gone with this type of duality instead of the one that 99% of fiction uses (ie, fire-water, yin-yang, etc...)

 

[Phoenks]

Well, the wiki has gone down the route of trying to be as logical as it can. And duality, or rather, operators, go by "is" and "is not" in classical logic.

I don't think it's entirely stupid. It's hard to prove authors actually have the same ideas when they say "light and dark" and "light and not light." Usually things like light and dark are just different cosmological or conceptual objects that said in opposition to one another, or they are antagonistic to one another. Which provides a very different meaning compared to the negation of saying "not light."

In the case that the 'B" is clearly contextually meant to be some kind of logical negation of 'A' rather than just antagonistic forces, I would get it... but I'm pretty sure that's what we already do anyways.

And we would still have to make that distinction if we changed the rules. Except, everyone is going to then try and wank their verse.

 

[Theglassman12]

I might make a staff thread in the near future to address this ridiculous idea of A and Not A being the only thing that qualifies for dual natures given some other series literally uses the most obvious examples of a dual nature (some of them flat out using the Yin Yang imagery) but it just doesn’t work.

 

[Kavliaris]

Ultima showed us that only logical negations count as dualities. And as you’ve seen on the duality page, fire and water aren’t dualities, but fire and not-fire are. So there’s no way darkness and light are logical negations if they dont include everything in their categories. Darkness includes all dark things, and light includes everything that’s not darkness, while being completely disconnected from each other.

Strictly speaking, does this count as logical negation?

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Strictly speaking, does this count as logical negation?

No

 

[Kavliaris]

No

what essence of duality if not corresponding aspect to everything regardless of principle.?

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

what essence of duality if not corresponding aspect to everything regardless of principle.?

Everything needs to either be true or false, not just have a corresponding aspect/opposite with no context of following the Law of the Excluded Middle.

 

[Deonment]

It's so funny ngl. Like, imagine;

Page uses Yin-Yang image as an example for duality

Yin-Yang somehow doesn't qualify as a duality

Nuke the ability at this point. I don't get why we've gone with this type of duality instead of the one that 99% of fiction uses (ie, fire-water, yin-yang, etc...)

This is because the page currently works off dualities in the sense of them being more contradictory than simple contraries, which is what most dualities fall into since near all of them are based in some version of the Activity Vs Passivity duality, with the only real ones that go in the elaboration needed for our current standards being ones based in the afformentioned buddhism, and general oneness stuff, along with a few outliers.
And like, I can kinda see why and stuff and can agree with part of it, but I think not including contraries is just a no from me

Anyways as for the actual topic the thread was about, if said duality encompasses reality up to the previous 1-A level (which I have a feeling which verse this is), and the character transcends said duality, even with the "the character transcends the duality between reality and fiction" stuff, they would get High 1-A, seeing as they wholly transcend something which binds even 1-A things

Also yes, Light and Darkness are duality that qualify by our standards, they are the most explicit example possible

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Also yes, Light and Darkness are duality that qualify by our standards, they are the most explicit example possible

That’s baseless, with no proof from the standards themselves. Concepts like existence and nonexistence work as logical negations because everything must either exist or not exist. But darkness and light, without context and without including all possibilities in their categories, are vague as hell.

By your logic, for example: during the day, shadows are darkness and the sun is light; at night, darkness is the night sky, and light is from bulbs or fire. So those would count as logical negations too?

With that logic, every verse has a duality of light and dark, even without a context where 'darkness' is being defined as the negation of all forms of light. I'd prefer if you didn’t spread more misunderstandings and add to the already existing confusion.

 

[SweetDao]

Me when I try to overcomplicate something when most authors don't even bother:

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah I mostly wanted to know if said verse that has pretty blatant R>F stuff and also has a statement of everything having a duality would imply something that transcends everything would include the duality of Reality and Fiction here.

This isn't something that can objectively be investigated. I'd disagree with it, but it would ultimately come down to the staff evaluating the upgrade thread.

I'd want something like that to have a much stronger link. Especially since, functionally, every verse that has any fictional media would include both reality and fiction, and so any such verse which invokes dualities would be able to jump to High 1-A by this logic.

Our actual standards about how far we take "NLFs" are a ******* mess. We're extremely strict with them when it comes to statements like "unable to be damaged by anything" (only letting it operate on things explicitly shown as being considered/attempted for use on it), but we're extremely loose with them when it comes to statements like "all dimensions" (letting it operate on things that aren't even mentioned within the series itself).

Where does "all dualities" sit between those? Unanswerable.

 

[Theglassman12]

Are we even loose on “all dimensions” type feats? I feel like we’re stricter on those statements than not given some verses don’t get upgraded to Low 1-A or 1-A from that alone.